Friday, February 13, 2015

Safer AZ Legalization Update 2/13/15

Safer AZ has continued to represent the AZ cannabis
community at large in our negotiations with MPP on the language of their new
ballot measure. The following is a result of our negotiations w MPP and with
our lawyer Tom Dean’s work on the drafting committee. This updates the Feb. 8th
report available here.

Many know that a huge factor in shaping the language on the
issue of citizens’ rights to produce their own cannabis at home was the
question of how well the issue polled among the general public. While few
marijuana users opposed personal grow, MPP and those investing in their ballot
measure will act based on the interests of the larger Arizona voting community.
With a campaign of more than $2 million at stake, it is small wonder polling
was closely watched on the question.

A separate poll was done in late December, early January, that
included questions on legalization, which indicated that personal grow rights
would have a significant negative impact on the likelihood of passage. The initial assertion by some was that the
polling said home grow had to be cut from the language before the final draft
was filed.

Update—Rob Kampia
the leader of MPP has rejected the early poll results and MPP is paying for a
poll that is being conducted during the middle two weeks of February. Inside
track says that despite concerns in the AZ mmj industry, MPP is committed to
keeping personal grow in the language at all costs. The results of the poll
will be available by the end of February and the finalized language will be
filed in early March at the outside.

Issues of Concern in
Current Language

Following an aggressive round of public presentations, Safer
AZ identified widespread support for several provisions:

What’s Good

By and large this draft satisfies many of the concerns Safer
AZ had about grow rights and small business access. DUI provisions are good;
citizen grow rights include possessing ALL the marijuana produced on personal
premises; protections for marijuana accessory use and promotion.

But also a series of specific concerns:

What’s Bad

The shift of licensing for adult
use marijuana from DHS to Department of Gaming, means a delay in new license
implementation until June of 2019 and that existing marijuana establishments
will have to apply for entirely separate licensing to expand into the adult
market. This will prohibit new investment into both the ballot measure’s
campaign and the industry. Unspecified penalties for larger possession and
“intent to distribute” offenses means those charges revert to existing state
statutes and remain severe felonies.

And called for revisions:

A)keeping licensing for all marijuana
establishments in the existing DHS structure

Update:
responding to widespread concerns, the draft currently will retain licensing in
DHS until a separate Department of Marijuana can be created.

B)excluding adult learning facilities from
prohibited locations

Update:
no change in language at this time, though an AMMA case current pending before the
state supreme court could rule that adult learning facilities such as colleges
and trade schools could be exempted under the AMMA and similar protections
could be argued here.

C)explicitly including the limited license fee
schedule in the fee section

Update:
the limited cultivation license fee listing is currently scheduled to be
included.

Update:
Under consideration, but a chief MPP concern has to do w accusations of interstate
commerce and with out of state pot dealers tourist shopping their way across
the state. There is a possibility of gaining ground on this issue.

E)requiring housing discrimination against
cannabis be explicitly written into housing leases:

Update:
Under consideration

F)listing penalties for larger possession (greater
than one ounce) and “intent to distribute,” and having those penalties be
misdemeanors. Doing business without a license should result in civil
penalties, not criminal ones.

Update:
Misdemeanor penalties for possession up 2lbs in public is under consideration.
Personal cultivation possession rights imply unlimited possession of marijuana
has been cultivated on premises. There will be no extension of protections for
unlicensed sale and trafficking of marijuana. Sharing between friends shall be
protected.

G)Protections from potential unreasonable local
restrictions on private consumption and transportation of marijuana

3.Language protecting home cultivators from the
implied distinction between “concrete possession” and “actual possession.” An
example of why this is a problem: If two people have 6 plants each and live in
the same house, if the plants are co-mingled could either person be charged w
possessing all 12 plants? What if a person had 12 plants at their household and
was assisting someone at a separate location with their plants. Is that person
now in possession of both sets of plants? This issue can be settled with some
simple clarifying language.

4.Parenting and discrimination protections similar
to, though stronger than, those in the AMMA. Currently CPS can assert an
automatic “neglect finding” if a parent is found with marijuana or even
declares they have a medical card. We are calling for explicit protections that
state “custody shall not be disturbed” for the legal possession and usage of
marijuana by parents.

Update:
Being revised. This specific passage has been cited for strong protections in
the upcoming draft.

About Me

We are occupying the left coast of Arizona, disorganizing people from Yuma to Utah and the Colorado River to Cottonwood! This District was built for an Extremist Republican like the three talking heads that are running, Gould, Gosar, and Babeu. Please help us change the discussion in AZ CD 4. We need your support! Mikel Weisser is a social studies teacher, poet, and activist with progressive vision and energy.